A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interested in 320 Rebuild Information



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 1st 03, 03:10 AM
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Interested in 320 Rebuild Information

I'm new to experimental aircraft and am surprised by a number of
things. The first was a peek inside a Lycoming IO-360. I've spent
most of my life around things mechanical...from building cars and
racing motorcycles so my first look inside a Lycoming was a surprise.

Given the size of the reciprocating components, it'd appear that the
engine beats itself to death before it wears anything out. The size
of the connecting rod pins, push rods, and valve spring pressures, on
the surface, seem to be way out of scale for a 180 HP engine.

Thin walled wrist pins that withstand 7000 HP in Funny Cars and push
rods that weigh in grams, not pounds that withstand 700 HP and 8000
RPM are common place, even in "hot" street machines. I guess what I'm
most curious about is why this technology, common place for 20 years,
is not included in certificated engines?

I was also stymied by some odd looking (excuse me for using the wrong
terminology) floating counter weights on the crankshaft. I'd expected
to see a solid, balanced crank. Can anyone help me understand the
advantage to have floating weights?

Why do you suppose they made the cylinder and head a single piece?
There are some pretty reliable, high horse power, high cylinder
pressure motorcycle engines that use a separate head and cylinder. If
the single piece was better, I'd expect factory race teams to follow
suit.

Any help would be appreciated.





  #2  
Old November 1st 03, 04:46 AM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...
I'm new to experimental aircraft and am surprised by a number of
things. The first was a peek inside a Lycoming IO-360. I've spent
most of my life around things mechanical...from building cars and
racing motorcycles so my first look inside a Lycoming was a surprise.

Given the size of the reciprocating components, it'd appear that the
engine beats itself to death before it wears anything out. The size
of the connecting rod pins, push rods, and valve spring pressures, on
the surface, seem to be way out of scale for a 180 HP engine.

Thin walled wrist pins that withstand 7000 HP in Funny Cars and push
rods that weigh in grams, not pounds that withstand 700 HP and 8000
RPM are common place, even in "hot" street machines. I guess what I'm
most curious about is why this technology, common place for 20 years,
is not included in certificated engines?

I was also stymied by some odd looking (excuse me for using the wrong
terminology) floating counter weights on the crankshaft. I'd expected
to see a solid, balanced crank. Can anyone help me understand the
advantage to have floating weights?

Why do you suppose they made the cylinder and head a single piece?
There are some pretty reliable, high horse power, high cylinder
pressure motorcycle engines that use a separate head and cylinder. If
the single piece was better, I'd expect factory race teams to follow
suit.

Any help would be appreciated.


There are some really knowledgeable engine people on this newsgroup who will
probably give you better answers than I can, but I'll give it a try.

Direct drive aircraft engines produce their power at very low RPMs compared
to the automotive engines you mentioned because a propeller needs to turn at
the lowest possible RPM for aerodynamic efficiency. That means that for a
given HP the torque must be far higher at that lower RPM. (You remember
that old hotrod formula HP= RPM x Torque divided by 5252?)

Higher torque means that the stressed parts need to be much more robust -
thus the beefy crank and rods in the Lycoming. Direct drive aircraft
engines are more like low RPM tractor engines than high revving race car
engines.
Keep in mind that all that torque is from only four cylinders.

As for the floating counterweights, a seemingly rigid crankshaft/propeller
system responds in strange ways to two massive power pulses each
revolution - it wants to wiggle around. The crank twists and the prop bends
with each whack. The dynamic counterweights help smooth that out a bit.

These low RPM, high power engines work with a lot of gas pressure above the
piston which is why the heads are integral with the cylinders. Back when
this design was adopted, head gaskets did tend to leak frequently.

A guy like you will probably want to know, "why direct drive?" Well,
they're cheaper to make that way. If you use a gear reduction system
(called a Propeller Speed Reduction Unit by this crowd) , the engine gets
heavier and more complicated. PRSU's tend to work better with a larger
number of cylinders - you can feed them smoother power that way. A lot of
people think that aircraft engine design should follow the race car example
with high revving 8 cylinder engines geared down to slow props. I tend to
agree.

There may be a better way and that is a diesel engine. Diesels produce lots
of torque at low RPM's and they use a lot less fuel doing it. There's no
worry about detonation either. I like that idea too.

Bill Daniels

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any Information on Super Stinker (S1-11B) Martin Morgan Aerobatics 1 December 29th 03 05:34 PM
How to obtain information? Toks Desalu Home Built 1 July 25th 03 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.